16 ms·
San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?
- maerF0x0 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California Despite California's current reputation, check out 1952-1988 . IMO that was a golden era of California, and the fertile grounds under which many of the boomers generation got their start
- belfalas 3y agoA great history professor I had at university was very interested in California politics. His take after years of research was that the thing holding California back is Prop 13, which has to do with taxation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 Dear HNers, please note: I understand Prop 13 is hugely controversial and the "third rail" of California politics. I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just sharing information.
- gibsonf1 3y agoThe increasingly bad management of California (and SF/LA etc) is not about taxes, its about managing based on ideology rather than the common-sense well-being of the citizens. Hence the citizens leave to more favorable places. If prop 13 had anything to do with it, we would have had people escaping the state back then instead of only in recent years.
- uoaei 3y agoThe only ones who get upset when you point this out are people who thought they could get away with and benefit from such a loophole. They see no problem with excluding others from the possibility of enjoying the same benefit as long as they already have it. Climbing a ladder and then pulling it up after you is anti-social and shameful.
- Domenic_S 3y agoWhat are you talking about? Prop 13 applies to every homeowner.
- boredumb 3y agoSo the thing holding back California is that they don't get enough taxes? There must be something more nuanced i'm missing, but it almost feels like a comedy sketch thinking of a California college professor explaining to people that California not taxing it's citizens enough is the thing holding it back.
- alexb_ 3y agoThe nuance is that with restrictions on property tax there is absolutely no disincentive for citizens to support local policies that restrict housing development. You are incentivized to keep the housing supply as low as you can possibly get it, because raising the price of your own property has zero downsides. This creates homelessness due to a restricted supply of housing.
- Dig1t 3y ago>support local policies that restrict housing development You are absolutely correct that this is the problem. But the solution is not to disincentivize home ownership with a tax, it is to fix zoning itself. Homeowners will still have an incentive to restrict housing supply even with a tax. However if you restricted the power of local zoning boards to tell people what they are allowed to build on their own land, then you would fix the housing crisis virtually overnight. There is a strong incentive for developers to build as densely as possible because they can make more money per acre, but the problem is that local zoning boards stop most development. https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/02/01/atherton-guts-most-of-multifamily-housing-from-plan-its-sending-to-state https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/02/01/atherton-guts-mo... >The council removed multifamily housing plans that were met with ire by residents, and softened changes to a lot on Oakwood Boulevard in Golden State Warriors' star Steph Curry's neighborhood ^ that is just one of a million examples of what I'm talking about. This has been going on for decades and the housing crisis we have now is the result.
- alexb_ 3y agoAsking to change policy without changing the incentives that led to said policy is a fool's errand. You have to change what people are incentivized to do to actually change anything because people respond to incentives, not ideas. The way you fix zoning itself is by incentivizing people do to so. Plus, that's not the only supply problem that comes from Prop 13. People don't want to ever sell their houses because that means their property tax will be reassessed when they move. That's another huge problem caused by Prop 13.
- Dig1t 3y agoIs the argument basically just "arg if only we could collect even more taxes we could use the money to fix all our problems"? California already has super high taxes that are skewed towards taxing the rich more. Seems like a joke at this point saying that they need even higher taxes. Also California's system of propositions is one of the closest forms of direct democracy available anywhere, if you like democracy then you should like this system. It is sort of inconvenient that the system was used to stop tax increases for home owners, but these are exactly the reasons why the system was created in the first place, to give people power over their own lives.
- khuey 3y agoA better argument is "distributing the tax burden based on how long somebody's family has owned property in the same place has a large number of negative effects." One (of many) serious problem(s) with Prop 13 is that it removes an important feedback mechanism whereby inflating property values result in higher taxes which gives even those who currently own property a financial incentive to support policies that keep housing prices in check. With that feedback mechanism removed, a property-owning homo economicus's rational move is to support policies that drive property values sky high (e.g. very restrictive residential zoning to limit competition while simultaneously seeking intense commercial growth to boost demand) at the expense of other members of the community (e.g. renters and future generations), and that's exactly what has happened in California over the last several decades.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Manuel_D 3y agoIt's not just more taxes. It's that Prop 13 effectively means your taxes go down over time. This encourages people to stay in housing units as long as possible. It also creates a big divide between people who bought early and those actually supporting the government through up-to-date tax rates. Most sickeningly is that privileged tax status can be passed parents and children, effectively creating a separate caste of people with lower taxes.
- 3y ago
- marsten 3y agoIf you're a new California homeowner, I recommend you never look up what others on your street pay in property tax.
- vondur 3y agoI wonder how many of the non business properties are still under Prop 13? I can't imagine it would be that many at this point. Business property can probably be held in some sort of trust so it appears to never have changed hands over the years.
- khuey 3y agoA huge number of residential properties are receiving massive prop 13 subsidies. Open up https://www.taxfairnessproject.org/map https://www.taxfairnessproject.org/map and go poke around a random neighborhood in Palo Alto. Blue means the assessed valuation is close to the market price, while red means the assessed valuation is a tiny fraction of the market price.
- labcomputer 3y agoLots. You can inherit prop 13 rates from your parents or grandparents. It’s a completely sick system that is literally creating a landed gentry
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- uoaei 3y agoRepublicans are the paragons of "boom now, bust later", alternatively "screw those who come after because I got mine". You're making a good point but don't seem to get it yourself.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rootusrootus 3y ago> And yet, San Francisco, like other great cities worldwide, has its unique charm and a sense of elitist smugness, a conviction that living here is a coveted opportunity. As a fellow lover of big cities, I respect this attitude. That's quite introspective, and might explain a lot of the commentary on hacker news when urban/suburban/rural discussions come up.
- buggythebug 3y agoI wouldn't put SF in the great cities list. Maybe it had something back in the 80's or 90's - it's own charm or soul. But for the past 15 year's it's slowly turned into a soulless, charmless, no character city where everyone is in tech and thinks the same. I may be in the miniority on this site - but frankly I think it's sucked for a while now. I've had much better times in other big cities worldwide.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ethbr0 3y agoPeople move to a city because they want to be more like the people who already live there. But if too many move in too fast, the city instead becomes like them.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoNo, most people move to a city for a job - not because they think the average person that lives there is some aspirational target. SF had an abundance of jobs that paid a boat load of money, and people moved there to take those jobs. Not because it's close to Muir Woods and has the best weather in the world, and the people at cafes wear cool t-shirts (although nearly everyone who moves to SF tries their hardest to convince themselves this is the real reason, not the job and the money).
- buggythebug 3y ago
- michaelterryio 3y ago[flagged]
- thenoblesunfish 3y agoAt least it's got a nice dose of irony, as it really seems to have been written from exactly the kind of person who populates that bubble.
- beerpls 3y agoNow consider that these people are also the ones who have created the rules and policies of online discourse Now apply the fact that talking is how we think and formulate thoughts Explains a lot in the last 20 years wrt politics and social movements… a very small elite who isn’t affected by the dangerous decisions they make
- thenoblesunfish 3y agoIt could well be that the only difference between the author and the people who "accept" crime is a few months. Is the author going to do anything about the problem other than restate it? If not, he might also shrug when someone arrives in town and states what everyone knows.
- aeternum 3y agoWhat I see in SF is not a direct acceptance of crime. Instead the majority seem to believe that locking up criminals is not the best way to deal with crime. Instead there need to be social programs, community service, a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into society rather than punishment. The intentions are good but unfortunately these policies don't seem to be working. Criminals are quickly realizing there is very little repercussion for certain crimes.
- alexb_ 3y agoAnyone have the text? Don't have or desire a Medium account.
- enlyth 3y agohttps://archive.is/YEBSa https://archive.is/YEBSa
- thenayr 3y ago[dead]
- sylens 3y agoYou're seeing this everywhere. Chicago, Philadelphia, and so on - although the problem may be worse in San Francisco. Cities are struggling in the post-pandemic era as the rising cost of living due to inflation in food and other essentials has driven more criminal activity, mostly around theft. This is happening at the same time where many cities are also trying more progressive, reform-based approaches to policing and charging criminals. If the only risk for stealing the author's scooter will be I get briefly detained and released the next day to await my trial, what's stopping me from stealing a different scooter every night? Even if I get caught 50% of the time, I'm making money the other 50% of the nights. A lot of city residents need to come to terms with the fact that some of these progressive criminal justice reforms may need to be adjusted a bit, given that we now have years of evidence of their effects. Otherwise, you're going to drive every law abiding, tax paying citizen out of these cities.
- JamesBarney 3y ago> as the rising cost of living due to inflation in food and other essentials has driven more criminal activity This is a big assumption. Do you have anything that backs this up? I'd be incredibly surprised if the FED jacked up interest rates, the Federal government cut expenditures or increased taxes to curb inflation we'd see a large fall in crime.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoWhat if we built a ton of free and low-cost housing, created a public healthcare system and made it easier for struggling people to get welfare assistance for staples like food and clothing?
- JamesBarney 3y ago> What if we built a ton of free and low-cost housing? Lets imagine homeless people are 3x more likely to commit a crime than the housed. Currently 1 in 800 people are homeless. If you eliminated the homelessness problem you'd end up with less than an even 1% reduction in crime. > Created a public healthcare system? Most crime is committed by young people who have very limited healthcare needs. > made it easier for struggling people to get welfare assistance for staples like food and clothing I was homeless for a while, and even among the homeless most could eat and were clothed. Such a small % of the population in the U.S. doesn't haven't enough food or clothing that making sure they did couldn't possible drive much of a reduction in crime. Those might all be nice things for a society to provide, but it isn't going to reduce the crime rate.
- badrequest 3y agoThis article doesn't make much sense to me. How are people who respond to your anecdote about being robbed with powerless indifference "ignoring" the problem? Are they supposed to suit up and go out on a caper to find your stolen item? They literally acknowledge that it happened to you and it's chalked up to ignorance, how?
- wallwariyan 3y agothis is an overreaction from suburban midwestern types. the people that have lived in the bay area and been priced out of sf will keep the region going. the rest will either fit in or move out of the area after publishing an out of touch medium blog post about their experiences
- dogleash 3y ago> Anyone who disagrees with me is from the flyovers Well, at least the culture of San Francisco is still alive.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cantSpellSober 3y ago> The Tenderloin is bad, and I had my scooter stolen Is there anything worth blogging about here? The linked article is more interesting. This person spent a few weekends in SF a decade ago and doesn't recognize their "once-beloved city".
- probablyexists 3y agoThis is entirely how I remember SF being 10 years ago as well. I don’t doubt that the pandemic has been hard on all cities, but I agree that the author is making a big assumption based on a tiny sample.
- j0hnyl 3y agoSF is so much worse than it was 10 years ago. 10 years ago you could still find people that haven't had their car windows smashed. These days I doubt you'll find someone that hasn't had their car windows smashed less than several times.
- borski 3y ago> 10 years ago you could still find people that haven't had their car windows smashed. 10 years ago, everyone I knew had had their car windows smashed. I’m not sure this is true.
- pbiggar 3y agoSo long as SF continues to criminalize homelessness instead of actual crime, the city will never get out of this. The problem San Francisco faces is that the various parties cannot agree what crime is. In particular, the folks in charge (Mayor, SFPD, and DA) are spending their time persecuting and criminalizing homelessness and drug addiction. We might generously say this is because it is visible, and also because of the fact that when middle class folks see visible poverty they think crime is high. But what we see here is an organized group breaking in and leisurely stealing valuable stuff. It has been studied and it is well known that organized crime gangs are doing the bulk of theft in SF, with the last DA (who was recalled for being "too soft on crime") managing to break up an organized gang of laptop thieves who got them from breaking in to cars. Though, naturally, the good people of SF had been blaming car thefts on the homeless. And the new DA won't even file charges against a broad-daylight murder, because the victim was homeless. Absolutely incredible the hoops they'll jump through to avoid prosecuting and stopping real crime, when there are homeless people they can fuck with instead.
- marstall 3y agoI lived in SF in the late '90s and saw many of the same things people have been posting about here lately . Tweakers on every corner in the Tenderloin, intense/overwhelming-at-times homeless presence in the blocks near Mission and lower Market ... latino gangs operating in the blocks south of 14th ... I heard gunshots fired in my neighborhood (24th street) on two occasions. Anybody here experienced SF then and now? Is it really worse now?
- qqqwerty 3y agoBorn and raised here. It is different (of course no city stays exactly the same over three decades). It feels like it is more concentrated now. Back then, there were a lot more areas in the city (and in the Bay) where one would be a little on guard. A lot of those places have gentrified to the point where they are much nicer than they used to be. But the hotspots have gotten a lot worse. On balance, I think more of the bay area population is safer and has a higher quality of life than in the 90s. But if you are near those hotspots, it seems like things are a lot worse than they use to be. This is probably why this topic is so muddy. It is pretty easy to generate a click bait headline about how bad things are by focusing on those few hotspots, but it is a lot harder to convey the more broad QOL improvements that the average resident is likely experiencing. This also explains why there hasn't been some sort of massive exodus, because most residents are not impacted by these issues.
- marsten 3y agoSpot on, this is my experience as well. A lot of the once-sketchy parts of Berkeley, Oakland, East Palo Alto, etc. have gentrified and become safer since the 70s and 80s. Part of that has been big shifts in racial makeup and socioeconomics. Starting in the mid-late 90s tech began to really dominate Bay Area employment, bringing in a lot of new (well-paid) people and forcing out many others.
- inconceivable 3y agoi visited a lot in the 90s, lived there from 2006-2008 in pac heights/fillmore, and still visit frequently. i think the difference now is that it's creeping into the 'nice' areas like pac heights, financial district, and russian hill, knob hill, north beach, etc. like, seeing shattered glass all over downtown is new. massive tent cities is new.
- moolcool 3y agoIgnoring? I live 6,000km away and I still see people online complaining about the crime in SF all the time.
- tootie 3y agoI have lived in NYC for almost 30 years and I see all sorts of complaints online and in the news, but almost never hear from anyone who actually lives here. Crime was so much worse when I fist moved here and I still mostly ignored it. There's crazy people and homeless and whatever. I let my kids walk around by themselves. I'm far more worried about them getting hit by a car than anything else.
- grumple 3y agoHappening in cities across the country. Philadelphia just rejected the more "woke" candidates in our mayoral primary (de facto winner, Dems outnumber Republicans 8+ to 1 here) in favor of a black woman who plans on being tough on crime: https://www.cherelleparker.com/244-2/ https://www.cherelleparker.com/244-2/ Similar to SF, we have elitists / idealists (mostly white people) who want to experiment with ideas like abolishing the police, a hands off approach to crime, and diversionary programs. Our current mayor and DA have been a disaster. We've been ignoring the world's largest open air drug market (Philly leads the nation in drug OD deaths... one spot ahead of SF). You can see a bunch of interviews with some of the addicts/dealers on youtube at this channel (amongst others): https://www.youtube.com/@alltimemedia https://www.youtube.com/@alltimemedia . It's not been going well for us. I myself had a neighbor who, despite being caught multiple times with drugs (he was a heroin and meth user and dealer), illegal weapons possession, threatening his partner with a gun in her face, caught on camera constantly stealing packages from neighbors, and committing other crimes, was consistently released with charges withdrawn. Or we were told by police that they couldn't do anything. Absurd. It's easy to be an idealist when you don't have to live with the consequences because it's not affecting you. But for those who are affected, who are building things for ourselves, building communities, just trying to live in peace, it matters. We can't have peace with addicts stealing everything that isn't tied down, people speeding through red lights next to the local daycare and park, blasting music as they ride dirt bikes at 2am and pulling guns on people, with used needles everywhere waiting for a toe or child to prick, people stealing your car at gunpoint, and with mentally unhinged people threatening you with violence just for being within screaming range.
- dragontamer 3y agoThere's certainly an elitist bubble ignoring a crime epidemic. But its all around us. The number of mass shootings in the south has risen exponentially. I'm talking Oklahoma, Florida, Texas. But they wanna distract from their own issues and blame the cities. I think the cities, for all of their faults, publish and are open about the crimes that occur on their streets. But crime is up all around the country. Its unfair to pretend that its just the cities that are dealing with this. --------- Case in point: everyone was quick to pretend it was a homeless guy who killed Bob Lee. But when the facts came in, it was Nima Momeni who was within Bob Lee's social circle. When the facts come down, murderers almost always know their victims personally. Crime is 60+% a self-served justice problem, when people grow untrusting of the local criminal defense system and decide to take things into their own hands (rightfully, or wrongfully). And we can see the growing number of people who want to take things into their own hands by simply watching gun-purchases over the past couple of years.
- m0llusk 3y agoOutrage over current circumstances is pervasive in the City. Had this guy not been so buried in his work then he probably would have noticed that. This situation is not something trivial, but took an accumulation of factors over a long period of time to bring about. The pandemic had a huge impact on areas and demographics that were already under major stress. People encountering this problem seem to think that simply cranking up enforcement and making the justice system more consistent will fix all of this. Many often conveniently forget the long history of tension between enforcement and minorities in the city. The White Night riots of 1979 were less than fifty years ago and violent sweeps of the Castro happened as recently as 1989. People want enforcement and justice but historically that has meant occasionally getting your streets closed and your face bashed in by cops with zero accountability. Maybe there is some middle ground? People seem anxious to make something work. And there is a potentially interesting example in San Mateo County just to the south. Social circumstances there are not that far off from San Francisco and there is also a big homeless population, but the rampant extremes have not erupted in the same way. But real progress will probably take something more than lashing out over a stolen scooter. It is interesting how many people are upset about these issues but wouldn't even consider attending a local council meeting let alone running for local office themselves. No matter how much you desire justice, it probably isn't going to be quickly delivered to your door for a modest fee like it is a meal or something.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- paulpauper 3y agoi was hoping there would be at least some stats/data in the article. Crime has been a problem in Sf. and other big cities for a long time. Nope,..no stats...just a long personal anecdote. But other data such as by Pinker shows crime has been in decline for decades after peaking in 1990. this includes all types of crime in many metro areas.
- georgeecollins 3y agoI was born in San Francisco. There are some parts of the city-- downtown parts in particular-- that have demonstrably worse homeless problems then they used to for reasons people will disagree about. However, in the eighties the city was also unsafe in many places that are completely gentrified now. There are parts of the city where you would get robbed walking though that are now completely nice and safe, or you would maybe see a mentally ill homeless person as opposed to a crime inclined teen, perhaps armed. The idea that there was a time when the town did not have crime problems seems strange to me.
- calibas 3y agoAfter living in the Bay Area for a while, I realized there's a class of people who don't really interact with the city the same way "normal" people do. They drive from their private garage or gated community to a parking garage where they work. They rarely touch the sidewalks, and never ride BART or any public transportation. They exist in this kind of fancy bubble that's separate from the harsh reality of city life.
- floren 3y agoAnd then this class decides policy
- aeturnum 3y agoI find this blog odd because I think people in SF are very aware of the property crime problem? But like...because there's a property crime problem no one is shocked that you experienced property crime? I think part of this is that there is a parallel discourse about crime "in general" shooting up in SF which is not supported by any data. But the bay has long had unusually bad crime of this kind - which is to say car break ins, motorcycle and bike theft, etc. So if you complain "about crime" sometimes people think you're new and don't know about this long standing problem that seems hard to fix (which is obviously bad but also kind of old news) - or they think you're talking about this other supposed trend that the data doesn't really back up.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wonderwonder 3y agoUnpopular opinion. Prisons Should really have at least twice as many occupants. If people are unable to live in a polite society and follow the rules they should be removed until they are willing to. How many times do we read about someone that killed/ raped/ assaulted someone and it's revealed they have dozens of prior arrests? Putting them back on the street constantly can only lead to their death or crimes against innocents. What has happened to crime and specifically the homicide rate since police were demonized? 28% increase in 2020 over 2019. A record increase. This is what happens when you remove police. No one should have to live in fear when getting on the train or walking down the street. Or have to constantly repair their property due to a smash and grab. Remove these people and house them somewhere they can no longer cause harm.
- tootie 3y ago"How many times do we read" It's a known principle that crime reporting has increased far faster than actual crime. And I mean, seriously you look at 2020 and think the major story was the police had bad PR? I'm pretty sure something else pretty big happened that year.
- wonderwonder 3y agoYes, George Floyd was killed. BLM happened. People rioted. Police stepped back as calls to defund the police began. African Americans began dying due to homicide in massively increased numbers. Did I miss anything?
- AYBABTME 3y agoI'm in the East Bay where the voters elected a repeat of Chesa Boudin, incarnated in Pamela Price. I must say that while I respect the counter-intuitive idea that a fresh "progressive" means of justice might solve the problem at the root, I really question the idea of leniency and non-enforcement of justice. I'm open to imaginative and counter-intuitive approaches, but I'm just not seeing this work out well. It appears that the strategy is to avoid enforcing or prosecuting minor crimes and letting people go with little consequences. But if I think about how this would work out, if I raised my kids like this, I quickly conclude that my kids would become awful people. Say that your kid does minor stuff like lying, swearing, refusing to apologize, breaking things on purpose. And you decide "I won't discipline my kid, because this isn't serious enough". It's pretty obvious that the kid is going to turn bad, since there's a missing feedback mechanism. They test the boundaries, and the boundaries are way far into unacceptable territory. Many would say you do a great disservice to your kid in not teaching them what is acceptable and what isn't, and letting them go feral without any notion that the minor stuff is also not acceptable. Now you might say that the justice system isn't a parent and residents aren't kids. But I think actually the analogy is appropriate. Our society needs to educate and shape public behavior to maintain harmony and fairness for all. To some extent, where parents have a duty to educate their kids, the government has a mandate to educate and police civil society. And yet the county is apparently shying away from fulfilling their role of educator and enforcer. Where's the feedback mechanism? It seems to me that the component of civility education is lacking in the general public, but we can't make up for this by relaxing the rules of society. Applying this entire "vibe" to myself: why should I respect speed limits, stop signs, or any "minor" thing when I know it goes unenforced. I was told my entire life that "driving is a privilege, not a right" and yet people drive with expired plates, or no plate at all, and nothing gets done about it on the basis that the needy would be worse off without their cars.
- legitster 3y agoOne of Ben Horowitz's books spends some time arguing that they set up Andreeson Horowitz in San Francisco specifically because they think it's the coolest city in the world - and they will naturally get access to the best talent because of it. Regardless of how you feel about SF now or then, it's hard to argue that it's actually "cool" enough today that it's drawing any talent on its own. People moved to SF to pursue the rat race of chasing after good software jobs - not the other way around. So yeah, I definitely believe that there is an elitist bubble where Horowitz and Benioff and other prominent SFians kind of delude themselves to believe that SF is actually a better place to start a software business rather than, say, Omaha or St Louis or even Sacramento.
- epa 3y agoTheres an issue with the jail reform community, mainly that they do not have an alternative. Keeping people out of jail is good - but releasing them to continue to commit crime seems odd. I dont hear the alternative "reform" solution.
- TradingPlaces 3y agoIf you prefer data to anecdotes: https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crime-dashboard https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crim...
- tbrockman 3y agoOff-topic, but these kind of conversations based on anec-data pop up here and in my social circles quite a bit, but it seems like they're often pretty sparse as far as the quantitative side of things are concerned. Does anyone know what the actual data suggests here? Are there any projects that make this data more discoverable and consumable for regular people, so that we can all have more well-informed discussions (assuming the data is as unbiased as possible) about what the real problems are, how bad they've gotten, and how bad they are relative to other things?
- antisthenes 3y agoFor quantitative data, I think we should be looking at store closures. How many stores closed in a city in a given time period? Is it more or less than other comparable cities? You have to normalize this data by population. I think individual thefts are just that - anecdata, which sways one way or another too far in any given time period. But something like stores/pharmacies, where systematic theft can occur would be a better indicator
- swalling 3y agoThe actual data is that SF has unusually higher rates of property crime compared to other major cities. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/fixing-san-francisco-problems/crime https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/fixing-san-francis...
- tbrockman 3y agoThanks for this! This has been really great to look through. Homelessness in the city consistently increasing definitely matches my perception. Interesting that motor vehicle theft in the city continued to stay so high even after the first wave of the pandemic.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- marstall 3y agoSome hard numbers from the FBI on historical crime #'s in SF: https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/us/ca/san-francisco/property-crime-rate-statistics https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/us/ca/san-francisco/prope... TL;DR most categories show significant drop between 2000 and 2018, including violent crime, and, to the the point of the article, motor vehicle theft. (edit: looks like there has been a significant rise in motor vehicle thefts in particular since 2018, but that is not specific to SF (TikTok to blame??) https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-crime-rates-17487348.php#:~:text=But%20like%20other%20parts%20of,the%20third%20quarter%20of%202018 https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-crime-r.... )
- joshcsimmons 3y agoFlagged for unpopularity and truth?